The Impact of Science on Society

by Prof. P. Krishna

Though modern science is of relatively recent origin, having started
with Galileo about 350 years ago, it has made very rapid progress and
completely transformed outwardly the manner of our living. It is said
that our life outwardly has changed more in the last one hundred years
than it did in thousands of years earlier, because of the scientific
knowledge accumulated over the last three centuries, and its
application in the form of technology. So the impact of science on
society is very visible; progress in agriculture, medicine and health
care, telecommunications, transportation, computerization and so on,
is part of our daily living.

In spite of all this progress, the consequent development of
technology and industry, and the conveniences, comforts and power we
have got through this knowledge, in no part of the world are human
beings happy, at peace with themselves, living without violence. It
was hoped that the development of science would usher in an era of
peace and prosperity, but that has been belied. On the contrary, if we
look at the level of violence throughout the world during a ten-year
period, from 1900 to 1910, or 1910 to 1920 and so on, in every decade,
in every country, the graph is going up. So, on the one hand, greater
prosperity — so-called globalization — and, on the other, greater
violence, sorrow, tension, and newer diseases.

Krishnamurti raised the question: Has there been psychological
evolution at all in the last two or five thousand years? Have we
progressed at all in wisdom, or the quest for truth, inwardly in our
consciousness? Science has generated tremendous power; knowledge
always gives power and is useful because it increases our
abilities. But when we do not have wisdom and love, compassion or
brotherhood, which are all by-products of wisdom, then power can be
used destructively. Sixty- five percent of all the scientific research
being done currently is directly or indirectly meant for developing
weapons, and supported by the Defence Ministry in every nation. In the
last one century, 208 million people have been killed in wars, which
is without precedent in any previous century.

So, does humanity deserve to have the knowledge which science is
generating? We do not let children play with fire, for they might set
the whole house on fire or burn themselves. And is not humanity in
that state, without wisdom? There is hatred in our motivations; we are
badly divided into groups — caste, national, linguistic, religious and
other groups. Is it then responsible for scientists to generate
knowledge, giving more and more power, without the wisdom to use it
rightly? Responsibility from a theosophical point of view is universal
responsibility. It means not saying: ‘I am only responsible for
generating scientific knowledge.’ You are also responsible for the
whole of society, all of humankind, and even the earth. We are living
in a scientific age, but what is so great about the scientific age?
Have we used the discoveries of science to be more protective, kind
and gentle, to bring about greater prosperity and peace?

We have been at war for thousands of years, but we now have nuclear
weapons. Joy Mills in her talk said: ‘It is important to watch your
next step, but before you take the next step, make sure that you have
a long vision, which gives the direction to that step. Is the new
knowledge, which is a new step, in the right direction? Through
genetic engineering we might develop new power, but can we ensure that
we will use that power for the benefit of mankind and for the earth at
large? We cannot ensure that. If we cannot, is it responsible? Yet,
all the nations of the world are spending huge amounts in developing
scientific knowledge, as if that is our priority. Are the problems of
humanity today caused by not having sufficiently fast aeroplanes or
computers? Of course not. The problems exist because of lack of
understanding of life and the psychologically primitive state in which
we find ourselves.

Einstein is on record saying that had he known that his equation E =
mc2, which stated a great truth about Nature, that mass is just
another form of energy — will be used to make atomic bombs and kill
large numbers of people in Japan, he would never have done that
research or published the findings. That is something which has
already happened in the last century. So, why do science?

Of course, we should distinguish between science and
technology. Science is the quest for truth about Nature. Its aim is
not to produce technology, but to understand how Nature works and
discover the tremendous order and intelligence operating around us. If
Nature were chaotic, if sometimes a stone went up and sometimes down,
then there would be no science. But definite causes produce definite
effects, and that is why science is possible. The scientist does not
create order, he merely studies it. We are living in a very
intelligent universe. A million things take place in perfect order
within our body without any conscious voluntary effort on our part,
but we have not discovered order in consciousness, which is virtue,
peace of mind, love, happiness, compassion, freedom from conflict,
non-violence. Socrates wrote that there is only one virtue — that is
order in consciousness, though we may describe it in different words
in different situations. And the quest for truth, and wisdom, which is
the essence of Theosophy, is the quest for order in consciousness, and
coming upon virtue.

So humanity has succeeded in the quest for science, because there is
order already there. Newton only discovered gravitation, which existed
a million years before Newton and will exist a million years
hence. The laws of Nature are independent of the scientist. If you ask
why Nature is ordered, the scientist cannot answer. He can only say:
‘I am a student of Nature. I observe and find that order there and I
am studying the laws that govern that order.’ The technologist takes
the knowledge which the scientist discovers and uses it to make guns,
or a motorcar, or generate electricity. Technology is a by-product of
science, but science itself is the quest for truth about Nature.

Before Faraday, who discovered electromagnetism, it was thought that
electricity and magnetism are two completely separate things. But he
discovered that if you push a magnet towards a metallic wire, a
current is generated in the wire, as shown by a galvanometer’s
deflection. He was very excited about this new discovery. After he
demonstrated this in a big hall, somebody asked: ‘All this is very
well, but of what use is this discovery?’ And he replied: ‘It is a
new-born child. Of what use is a new-born child?’ Today we know that
discovery has made possible this microphone, these lights and fans,
motorcars and aeroplanes and so on. But that was not the reason why
Faraday discovered electromagnetism; he was just studying Nature.

Human beings use the knowledge gained by science and decide what kind
of application to make of it. If there is wisdom, we will not use
knowledge for destructive purposes. And if there is no wisdom, we are
violent and selfish, and use knowledge in a destructive way. History
shows that man has used it and is still using it primarily for
destruction rather than for construction, bringing our planet and our
lives to a level of danger which never existed before. Scientists are
pointing out that the third world war would be the last, if it takes
place. So is there anything we can learn from science as Theosophists
interested in wisdom, in coming upon a deeper understanding of life
and of ourselves? Science, or scientific knowledge, does not deal with
values per se, with what is right and what is wrong — it does not say
that you should be kind. Scientific knowledge is said to be
value-neutral. But one must discover what is called the scientific
spirit, for the spirit is always more important than the technique,
the knowledge or the method in any activity.

Although in society we have valued scientific knowledge and its
application as technology, we have not really valued the scientific
spirit, without which it is wrong to call ours a scientific
society. We are an unscientific society. Science says that the whole
earth is one, that we are all citizens of this planet, but it is we
who divide ourselves and say, ‘This is my culture and this is my
country and I will work only for this.’ For the benefit of our nation
we have armies to exploit other nations. All this is not
scientific. War is not scientific in spirit.

This is also true of many things in our life. There is the spirit of
religion, which is wisdom, and there is the outer form or structure of
religion: the rituals, the manner of praying, the beliefs and so
on. Without the spirit, rituals become hollow, empty. There is the
spirit of art, which is the sensitive perception of beauty in
sculpture, painting and so on, and there is the technique. You can
learn the technique, but if you do not have the spirit, you do not
become a true artist. There is the spirit of education, the vision,
and there is the technique of education, depending on whether
education is regarded as merely training somebody to earn a living, or
as meant to draw out his entire potential. If there is no vision, the
technique, the method, and the steps go wrong. The path becomes
mechanical.

So what is this scientific spirit? What can we learn from science
which is precious? To understand this, let me take the example of the
particular science I am familiar with, which is fairly basic to all
science, that is, physics. It begins with observation, for
understanding any phenomenon in Nature calls for careful observation,
honest documentation and measurement, and recording. Then having
collected a lot of data about the phenomenon, you look for
correlations among them. From empirically found data, correlations
between two variables are established, and then guessing what is the
underlying reality which would cause those correlations. That is what
the physicist calls ‘the model’ — that is where his insight or his
genius manifests, for he has to guess what is unknown.

Whenever scientists talk about theory, about reality, they are talking
about an imaginary model of the underlying reality. Nobody has seen
electrons actually going around a nucleus inside an atom. That is a
conjecture, a model about the underlying reality. To this model they
apply logic, using the existing known laws determined from previous
work and the peculiar form of logic called mathematics, which is a
product of the human mind. And then they deduce ‘a theory’, and try to
explain all observed facts and also predict new facts which have not
been observed until then. Then again the scientists go back to
observation and do experiments to check if their predictions are
correct. If the experimental values do not tally with the
theoretically predicted values, they either modify the model, or they
discard it altogether and start all over again. It is a deep quest
because they are not accepting the reality as they see it. They are
saying there is an underlying reality which is not visible, and we are
going to find it. But since it is not visible, we have to guess, to
imagine it, and that is the model.

Usually the model gives approximately correct results, and they have
only to modify it and make successive models closer and closer
approximations to reality. It is fortunate that the logic called
mathematics has an application in Nature. Somehow, Nature follows
mathematics, which is really a mystery. Galileo wrote that mathematics
is the language in which God wrote the universe, and this seems to be
true. Mathematics, evolved by the human mind, actually
applies. Einstein could do two hundred pages of mathematics, starting
from certain hypotheses, using the known laws of Nature, and then
deduce that when light goes near a star it must bend, and calculate
how much it must bend. When twenty years later they are able to do the
experiment because technology has got refined to that point, they find
that indeed it bends by exactly the amount he has calculated, which
means that those two hundred pages of mathematics apply in Nature. But
if you ask: ‘Why do they apply?’ We do not know. If you ask why there
are laws, we do not know. If you ask why Nature is ordered, we do not
know.

So the spirit of science is one of great humility. It begins with
saying, ‘We do not know the truth about Nature. I am making a
conjecture, and I have found a method by which I can test whether this
conjecture is correct or not, and to what extent it is correct.’ And
that is how science has progressed — without accepting authority. A
young student can question Einstein, and point out an error, and
Einstein will agree and thank him: ‘Yes you are right I made a
mistake.’ So nothing is accepted on authority. Science demands proof,
observation, testing with experiments; and the truth must be something
which is universal, which everybody can be convinced of. Of course,
they limit themselves to studying phenomena which are measurable.

There is also much in life which is not measurable, which is the field
of religion. But there are a number of values which are inherent,
which we can learn from science. One, as we said, is
humility. Scientists are not humble, science is humble. It encourages
observation, testing what is observed, questioning, doubt; and the
truth is the same for everybody. There is no such thing as American
truth and Indian truth. There is no Indian mathematics and American
mathematics. Either a stone is attracted by the earth and gravitation
exists, or it does not exist; it cannot exist for Indians and not for
Americans. So, it is a global activity, a dialogue among thousands of
people who have never met, because that experiment is then repeated in
another country by another group of scientists. And they write the
results, and publish them, and everybody reads them. There is a
process of dialogue and constant correction.

So truth is global, universal; it is not the private property of any
individual. It is the same for everybody. These are values
constituting the scientific spirit. In order to settle a dispute,
violence is not used, nor authority. So the spirit is one of non-
violence, of dialogue. It is also a truly democratic endeavour, based
on cooperation, humility, and mutual respect. All scientists may not
be true scientists if they do not work with that spirit, but science
is done in that way. Unfortunately, the scientist adopts that policy
in the laboratory but not at home nor in his life. A statement was
made by Krishnamurti: ‘The scientific mind is a part of the religious
mind, but the religious mind is not a part of the scientific mind.’ To
discover the truth about Nature this scientific mind is competent; the
same approach is also valid for discovering religious
truths. Religious truths are also universal, not different for
different people. That is the motto of the Theosophical Society,
‘There is no Religion Higher than Truth’.

We have not seen the truth, it is unknown to us, but we can in
humility enquire, and conduct dialogues about our perceptions, doubt
our perceptions, and thereby discover for ourselves what the truth
is. Theosophy is essentially the quest for wisdom, and wisdom means
seeing the deeper inner nature of things. That is precisely what the
scientist is doing too.

We have taught science like a technique, to carry out our own
purpose. Science has become the servant of society. The politician
illogically, irrationally, according to whims, decides to go to war;
and scientists, as employees, are helping him do whatever he wants,
whatever his government wants. Science is no longer the architect of
society, and students are learning the knowledge and techniques of
science, not imbibing its spirit.

The same mistake is made in regard to religion; we have not imbibed
the spirit of religion. When we really care for the spirit and delve
deep, we will discover that the true religious feeling and the
scientific spirit are not separate. Indeed, great scientists like
Einstein and Shrödinger have come to the religious feeling, through
science, through the perception of beauty in Nature. Whichever aspect
of the earth or this universe you explore deeply — whether the human
mind or the tree — you will discover marvellous beauty. When you go
deep, truth becomes beauty and beauty truth, and that is also
wisdom. The superficial understanding of ourselves, of religion, of
the meaning of science, is the enemy of man. Theosophy is really to
delve deep, in what area it does not matter. In the depths, there is
wisdom.